9/11 Research

I want to take a second to suggest that everyone take a second to think about 9/11. We all said we would never forget, stay true to that, keep an eye on what is being said about 9/11, what is happening because of it.

Take a moment every once and a while and go to google's news site and search for 9/11..

We have now cut to the heart of the evil that lurks at the centre of the untruth movement.
Bush says that in order to protect freedom we must take it away. That in order to have peace we must have endless war.
The criminal elite knows very well that they can't sell this crap to everyone. So they need to promote what appears to be a dissenting view, but is in essence the very same message taken to an even more extreme level.

This message aims to redefine the very concept of truth. Truth is no longer what did or didn't happen. It's what you can make people believe.

and concludes that [[even if it were true, it would be a loser for the
movement ]].

We can take "movement" to mean "truth movement" ,since Fetzer speaks for an organization called "Scholars for 9/11 truth."

This is a quite clear philosophical position that anything which is perceived to be politically advantageous should be sold to the public under the banner of "truth" regardless of whether it is true or not.

Fetzer is now attempting to claim that there is no conflict of interest of him, since he believes in planes anyway.

This actually contradicts the whole point of his previous quote because the very essence of that was that the fact that he believes in planes is merely
a fortunate coincidence. That he'd be taking exactly the same position even if he didn't believe in them.

Thus we have no way of knowing whether or not Fetzer actually believes in planes.

But this goes way beyond the issue planes or no planes. If Fetzer advocates that the truth or otherwise of one aspect of the evidence is subordinate to it's perceived marketability, then it can be reasonably assumed that this commitment to lying extends to everything.

That whenever Fetzer does tell the truth, it's only because that particular snippet of truth happened to be convenient. Anybody will tell the truth when
it happens to be convenient for them. Even Bush.

What we are being sold is double think. That truth be redefined as anything
which says "Bush lied", regardless of whether the new story is any more true than the Bush story. The criterion for determining which of the infinite
number of alternative stories should be chosen to replace the Bushco lie is not the truth or otherwise of the new story but it's marketability.

Every possible alternative story from "Alien Lizards" to "they ignored the warnings" is filtered by Fetzer not on the basis of the evidence for its truth or otherwise but on the basis of its perceived marketability.

This is the core of the slight of hand. The abuse of the word "truth". An abuse of language and an abuse of the concept of truth.

If Fetzer (or anyone else) were to argue that mass marketing of the truth is simply not possible, and that it is therefore acceptable - or even ethically
obligatory - to sell people a lie which is not as bad as the competing lie, then they would have a valid argument.

By valid, I do not mean that I agree with it. I mean that is a transparent and internally consistent position which can be argued on its own merits,
and stand or fall on the basis of a reasoned argument. There may not even be a definitive answer on that position, since whether or not is useful or
acceptable to sometimes lie is not an argument which can be "proved" as such ,one way or the other.

Protagonists in such an argument may well have to settle for agreeing to disagree on such a position as simply a matter of strategic judgment. They may even agree that the world needs both types of people, and that people should simply find the niche which serves them best.

It is not my intention to debate that question here, but simply to
acknowledge that the question of whether it is wise to tell the truth is at least a valid proposition suitable for transparent debate.

But this is not the same as redefining "truth" as the person's choice of strategy. Such an abuse of the concept of truth paves the way for a lunatic
"truth cult" which will sell any lie as "truth" simply because it's not the same as Bushco's lie.

It's a simple but clever ploy by the criminal elites. When the banners of "democracy" or "freedom" or "security" are shown to be a cover for endless
lying, then the logical thing is to replace it with the banner of "truth" and then keep selling the same old lies (tweaked a little) under the cover of being the exposing of the those lies.

This is what Fetzer, Jones and Griffin are up to. This is why they are so desperate to defend the integrity of the mainstream media.

Because they need the MSM as the vehicle with which to mass market the new face of the same old lies.

The airing of a cartoon and passing it off as a real event is fatal to the integrity of the MSM. This is why these three are so opposed to it.

This is also the main reason for their plagiarism.
As in explained in Scholars for 911 plagiarism and disinformation

By erasing the research of early researchers like Jared Israel and Jeff King and fraudulently claiming it as their own, and therefore new - for example,
their fraudulent claim to the fake bin laden video being a recent scholars discovery, they provide the MSM with an opportunity to say that they never knew about it until now.

Fetzer provides a powerful blend of truth, lies plagiarism and timeline revisionism as a means to ensure that that when it's time to hang out someone for Sept 11, it will only be the patsies who are no longer any use to the criminal elite - like Bush and Silverstein - while protecting the MSM.

Just as the new bloodthirsty dictator, when overthrowing the old one, does not disband the torture squads, but merely takes possession of them and if
necessary, repackages them, Fetzer, Jones and Griffin plan not to end the lies but to repackage them and take control of the main means of marketing
them - the MSM.

Here Fetzer has been caught red-handed advocating that the we tell lies whenever it might be considered advantageous and market them under the
banner of "truth".